Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    October 1, 2010 9:00am-9:30am PST

10:00 am
that every 10 years we figure out of the housing element. how should we subsidize the developers backed right redevelopment then constituents of san francisco that are against it. who is building the power plant? are we having a discussion where we will provide some energy at this point? i might add treasure island and the trans bay. the commissioners at some point
10:01 am
will have an orientation about the rate cut and how municipalities including the military or subsidized. how the changes were made in public housing where at one time they were given free energy and they don't have to pay for it. how did that come about? things have changed drastically because we have quarry's will -- that will generate income. this is like a corporation. if we're going to address something like this, we will be
10:02 am
asking questions like this. we will be asking what -- for the population of san francisco. how many residences do we have that consume a lot of problems? i think someone must rock the boat. very few commissioners are asking the right questions. you have to be educated on issues. think you. -- thank you. >> i am representing the san francisco green party. we have been working for community choice aggregation
10:03 am
implementation. i want to emphasize on the questions that were asked, this is a profoundly in question -- important question. we have said it doesn't they will likely be setting up -- power and the purpose would be so it it is easier for the cca system to meet or beat prices from pg&e. if you have this huge cca drying up possibly all of your power into the systems, that will profoundly changed the
10:04 am
situation. cca will probably get under way in the next year purchasing and than a year or two after that, construction and installation. it is very likely that the cca will give some of that power. there are all kinds of factors that need to be studied and i know it is more work. i don't understand how this can be done without doing detailed studies on what is likely 4 cc a. -- for cca. this will profoundly affect your
10:05 am
supply. i would suggest that the contractors that and staff look at how this will play out. >> thank you. next item. >> item 11, discussion of possible action to authorize a general manager of the san francisco public key to this commission to establish charges for the electric power. >> have you any questions? item 11.
10:06 am
i will entertain a motion if you wish to adopt. >> so moved. >> seconded. >> are there any questions? all those in favor of adopting item 11. the ayes have it. >> item 12, discussion and possible action to authorize the general manager to request that the mayor recommend to the board of supervisors approval of a supplemental appropriation in the amount of $8,400,000 to fund the preliminary planning, engineering, and design work for the city's of silvery water supply facilities improvement program as authorized as part of the proposition b earthquakes
10:07 am
safety and emergency response bond, authorize associated costs to be reimbursed by bond proceeds, a pump to the findings pursuant to the california environmental quality act. >> are there any questions? >> we have no speaker cards. >> i will entertain a motion. >> i will move. >> second. >> i have a question. where's pump station number one and where is pump station number two? >> that is a very simple question. i will know that next time. >> pump station number one is at the corner of second and -- ion.
10:08 am
the said the station is at fort mason. that is very old and interesting. this is all very old but it still works. >> there's been a discussion for some time of having a guardians of the city museum that will be a combination of police, fire, paramedics, sheriffs, first responders, just about everyone else. they're hoping to announce as soon as possible possibly in october that they're looking to be involved in the retrofit of that facility to possibly make
10:09 am
it something like the cable car museum. >> any public comment? >> thank you. there has been a motion to adopt. all of those in favor, please signify by saying aye. the motion passes. >> item 13, discussion and possible action to authorize the san francisco public it is commission on general manager to request that the mayor recommend to the board of supervisors approval of a supplemental appropriations substituting revenue bond proceeds as a source of funding for previously anticipated $30 million of state
10:10 am
grant funds included in the waste water enterprise's capital improvement project budget, $20 million in fiscal year 2010-11 and $10 million in fiscal year 2011-12, and including financing costs of $3,846,000 in fiscal year 2010-11, and $928,000, in fiscal year 2011-12 and submit a proposed ordinance authorizing the issuance not exceeding $34 million. >> if i can walk you through the important points of this item. the overarching item here is that the delay of the state program. if i can turn the clock back to
10:11 am
2006, voters approved a general obligation bond to cover disaster preparedness and flood mitigation management. $4.1 million took until 2008 for legislation to be able to get a portion of the appropriation. two years have passed. over the last two years, our staff has been working very hard to try to bp near the front of the line to try to do our grant application and working with our staff on guidelines and other kinds of criteria. the good news is that the state finally in august of 2010 issued a proposal solicitation package which is a very good planning and for $212 million, they will
10:12 am
be allowing the applications to come in up until april, 2011, but they will not have the public hearing, review recommendations, and reward grants until september, 2011. in our budget, we provide all projected available sources and we made our best attempt to try to provide the state whatever they needed. what we assumed of $20 million of sources, the state has said at the very soonest this will not be issued until september, 2011. we have taken the existing plan, the project would stay exact -- exactly the same that we have moved the proceeds up a couple of years and projected the grant
10:13 am
proceeds that will leave those trailing a couple of years until we next visit the plant, you will see that the numbers are still similar but the timing of the grid vs. the revenue bond in basically provides a substitution of those two sources. over the 10-years, the same number of bonds, the same number of grants. the appropriations substitution is required because on the source cited the budget, even though the use is the same, another is slightly different because of the revenue bond verses the grant. when we do these, we have financing costs. we would be able to keep our existing rates just as they are through 20-14 -- through 2014. we are always reviewing the
10:14 am
projected rates for the next 10 years as part of your budget deliberations. in many ways, this is another example of trying to stay on track to keep the project moving in what is a very good bidding environment. we have adequate authority to do that. >> commissioners. i will entertain a motion. >> second. >> moved and seconded. any public comment? >> there has been a motion to move and except on item 13. the ayes have it.
10:15 am
>> item 14, discussion and possible action to authorize the general manager to negotiate and execute a memorandum of understanding with the san francisco recreation and park department for the delivery and application of recycled water to the sharp park golf course. >> this is a product that we had put on hold a while ago pending the resolution of the issues, is that correct? >> the timing was that we had put it on hold and we were looking for a policy. they made the decision to do this and continue with the golf course.
10:16 am
you gave us several authority to go ahead and authorize the beginning of the work. where do we leave the water? if the policy decision to go ahead was made and our decision to go ahead and have the recycle plant in place, do you have the date of that? >> recreation took the matter under consideration in 2009.
10:17 am
>> i could not find the basic business terms. >> the basic business terms through a variety of funding sources, the north coast -- north coast county is delivering water to certain neighborhoods in addition to sharp park. you will assign the responsibility to rec and park for the mitigation measures that are contained in the agreement that we signed with north coast.
10:18 am
the recreation and parks department, they would be paying the north coast county water district lowered costs compared to the capital component for that. >> recreation and parks is find the water not from us but from north coast? >> they pay a charge for existing water. they would basically be paying the constant and a charge for the water that is being generated. >> we are basically not part of the deal? >> we providing money for the construction of the recycled water project that it would be delivered by the -- water
10:19 am
district. >> there is no direct offset. >> we consider these a demand because our water is going there. >> ok. >> so there would be an offset. >> yes. this would be about 3 million gallons a year or about 80,000 gallons per day >> right now, we are providing water and an agreement to north coast. the recycle water would be substituted for that. since the water would not be ours, there would be no reason for that agreement with north coast.
10:20 am
>> they would be paying in effect for the water to be delivered to them by north coast. >> ok, this basically stacks up as paying $52 an acre foot. >> yes. wives and i am curious about moving forward with our projects. how does this compare to golden gate park? >> this runs closer to $8,000 a foot. >> this is closing to $100 per
10:21 am
acreslashft. >> any further questions? >> before we close in go to public comment, can i get this in the back of the project sometime when you have a chance to for this is just a project schedule. >> hang on a second. >> the mou is between puc and rec and park for operations and maintenance? >> correct. if you can turn to page four or five, that is actually the list
10:22 am
of things which are a retrofit of the irrigation system and training the staff and guaranteeing that there would be a site supervisor and testing and inspection. these are what we have agreed on behalf of the city. this assigns the responsibility to parks and recreation. >> these are the mitigation measures. >> correct. >> these are the agreements that we had and we are now transferring or allocating to parks and recreation? >> correct. >> the item shows that would it would give the general manager the response -- the responsibility to negotiate the mou. the wording on the agenda is
10:23 am
slightly different from the final wording. >> that is what we will be voting on. >> correct. >> are there any further questions? is any public comment >> we have three speaker cards. >> public comments on item 14. >> good afternoon, commissioners. we advocate the protection of national parks. a thank-you for your work on the conservation efforts. i am here to express concerns
10:24 am
that the puc is considering authorizing agreements for the golf course which is within the boundaries of the conservation area this is the project that has been known and documented by the fish and wildlife service. we are concerned with this potential action. this came up in march of this year and april of this year. north coast county wanted to know should we move forward with this project because there is ailing real issue here on the golf course. we are not aware of any policy
10:25 am
to the continued to call for. how could the water continue elsewhere? this is a serious matter. there have been notices to file in the city of san francisco for the care of these issues. why am not clear what the role of puc is. this project is unresolved. there are other organizations that can share their thoughts with you. this continues to be unresolved. the city of san francisco has
10:26 am
had to work with the agency's. this is clearly not a policy directive. that is what is going on right now. we know that your response to public comment, this could be directed elsewhere in the project changes. this is it part of the overall project. i believe that 80% was directed towards sharp park. it would feel fortunate to have federal funds not spent towards this project. this is also quite water
10:27 am
intensive and the restoration may not have that same use. thank you for the discussion. thank you for your time for conserving water. >> hello, i'm a resident of san francisco and i'm concerned because we would like to authorize a general manager to negotiate a memorandum of understanding with the parks department for the delivery and application of recycled water. i don't oppose using recycled water in place of drinking water for non drinking uses. the substitution must be.
10:28 am
this would be designated for a golf course. we have no resolution on the future of the park. the san francisco public utility commission should not authorize the commission. in the public utilities commission should insure that the water is constructed and the delivery contracts negotiated or require you to deliver this to other uses. it is important that the contracts include other uses for the water including when the future of the park is not yet determined. i have a letter from the alliance. "dear commissioners, this is a request that the commission
10:29 am
delayed a decision about the project. we did not support wasting public money on water for a golf course. the golf course is illegal and in our mental problem. the coast is continually -- the golf course is illegal and has environmental problems. we urge you to delay the decision on this project until it can be redesigned for flexible use by other customers, not as it is now.